posted on June 9, 2002 06:33:40 PM new
I think that Blind Loyalty needs no excuses to be what it is, ncyc; nor, in this instance, can it possibly respond.
posted on June 10, 2002 12:21:12 AM newnycyn
I just want to start by getting a few things straight.
You responded that I should "knock myself up";
You get in return what you post. I may have said alot with my ONE post but YOU have said alot in several posts. You have attacked me and my posts with your snide little comments. I guess you must have thought that I wouldn’t take notice of this.
that my post was not relevant to your initial posting;
You said in response to my original post OK, fair and square: what exactly does this mean? Does it mean that you agree with my original post or is it just your way of side-stepping my post alltogether? I don’t know, why don’t you enlighten me on this? And then you went on to say;
What are Bush's merits/accomplishments? Last time I asked you a question like this you responded in a gauche manner. Can you do any better this time? I'm all earnest eyes.
Which in fact this did not have anything to do with my original post.
and invited me to start a new thread.
Actually I SUGGESTED that you start another thread. I did this so that you wouldn’t derail my thread with YOUR diatribe.
[i]So I called your bluff, or asked you to wake me up:"What good has Bush done for the
country"(more or less)[/i]
YOU called me out and I expect YOU to respond to me with your opinions and not just
regurgitated responses posted by others. Any claims or charges that you make against Bush had better come with the PROOF to back it up or I will ignore them. I don’t care what Borillar has to say, nor Helenjw, KRS or anyone else, in fact I will ignore what anyone else besides you has to say in this thread. In otherwords, you started this thread by calling me out and it should be you
that finishes it. This is the way it works when you call someone out, your on your own. Of course you will probably communicate with others through email to get ideas on what to post, but I guess I can’t do anything about that.
So, more or less Besides the obvious, that he beat Gore in the election so we wouldn’t have to live with another 4 years under a Democratic party regime.
Bush’ tax cut was something good for the country, it benifited ALL Americans.
The war in Afghanistan, we kicked the $hit outta the Taliban and Al Qeida and liberated the country from an oppressive regime. I don’t care that Congress didn’t approve this action or declare war, however, as I said in Borillars thread titled; “If Congress Declares War, Will You Be Happy?” I said
Yes I would feel better about it if Congress did declare war. Because it would solidify and unite us all in a common goal against an enemy that is hell bent on destroying us. Rather than living with all of this division and fighting amongst ourselves.
Otherwise, with the state of the current situation being that we have to hit back after the 911 attack, I think Bush did the correct thing in attacking the Taliban and Alquieda, Congress or no Congress.
I mean what were we supposed to do after 911, just sit on our thumbs when we knew full well who the enemy was and not go after them just because Congress didn’t declare war. I think that even you would agree with me on this. Along these same lines he is going after terrorists and/or followers of OBL like in the Phillipines.
As far as Iraq is concerned I believe that all the talk of invading them is just grandstanding and Bush really has no intentions of invading. What I believe he is trying to accomplish with all his talk of an invasion is to scare Saddam Hussein into
believing that we will attack so that either he will curtail his weapons of mass destruction research and development or so that he will allow inspectors back in to his country to avert a war. This is something really good he is doing for us and the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East.
He’s in the process of creating a new cabinet post. The Director Of Homeland
Security, headed up by Tom Ridge, an appointment that even some Dems. agree was long overdue. In creating this new cabinet post he is gathering together all of the US inteligence agencies so that vital homeland security information won’t get lost in the shuffle. Also he has brought to light the fact that there has been some power struggles or squabbles between the different inteligence agencies so that he can help to smooth out the processes of inteligence
interpretation and to make Director Ridge’ job a little easier.
He is meeting with heads of state from the Middle East and in other areas of the globe to try to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palistinians. This is a tough job in and of itself, involving much hatred by both sides. Clinton tried and I must say that he did a fair job of it himself, albeit he obviously failed but then I believe that any President will fail in this endeavor as long as both sides are still killing each other. This is a conflict involving many factors and it has been going on since 1948.
President Bush has only been in office for a short amount of time. I say give him a chance and lets see what else he does while in office.
I just want to end this by saying that I do not live for conflict on these message boards but if a conflict comes my way I will not back off. Additionally, as I said in my thread titled; “The Clinton legacy” in response to kraftdinner When they take their subtle little cheap shots they should expect some in return. I think this is wholey approprate to this thread because of the cheap shots that you and others have directed at me, all because I am a Bush supporter.
ed ubb
[ edited by yellowstone on Jun 10, 2002 12:28 AM ]
posted on June 10, 2002 06:30:20 PM new
Yellowstone:
Whatever. But thanks for finally answering the question as to what you think Bush has done for this country, which you never answered, or at least not in any thread I was involved in, and which is all I ever asked of you.
I don't think what you think are particularly noteworthy moves, but to each their own.
I never responded to your posts in a way that warranted you telling me two times to "knock myself up", so my opinion of you has not changed.
posted on June 10, 2002 08:17:00 PM new" Bush' tax cut was something good for the country, it benifited ALL Americans."
Ah, good! Yellowstone, maybe you can answer a question that I had on that from a different thread that never got answered. Since you are all FOR the Bush Tax Cut and think so highly of it, you must understand all of the ins and outs and agree with them. Futhermore, you look down upon the rest of us for being so clueless. So please let me cut and paste the question on this subject from the other thread and you can educate us so that we can all see just how ignorant that we are!
My question is in two parts and I'd like your (yellowstone's) input on both parts. On the Tax Cut that Bush got passed:
a) the up-front tax cut rebates were funded by taking money from a privately-owned, but Federally operated savings/investment account. This investment account would accrue interest each year, which is good for the investors, but Congress and the President of both parties kept "borrowing" the interest and leaving unpaid I.O.U.s behind. G.W. Bush, Jr. called for a "Lockbox" after Al Gore did in order to stop what amounted to as "theft", since the money was not being paid back (actually, under Clinton, we had just begun repaying it back). Now, the savings/investment account is called Social Security, which is owned by the People of the United states and is administered by the Federal Govenment for us. Since the tax cut could not be justified in the budget, it had to come from our savings/investment account; meaning that we took the money from ourselves (Social Secuirty) to give to ourselves (Bush Tax Rebate). Furthermore, since we left another I.O.U. there, "We, the People" now have to pay interest on that money that we borrowed from ourselves to give to ourselves!
Question yellowstone: What is your evaluation of that situation and was it the right thing for Bush to do?
b) most of the rest of the Tax Cuts do not take effect for nine years hence, are active for one full year, and then the tax cuts are destroyed and the old tax laws come back into place. Unfortunately, Nine Years is much longer than G.W. Bush could hope to serve as President and won't be there to make it permanent. With the problems that this Tax Cut has caused, charged by some powerful, knowledgeable critics - not just Democrats or "Liberals" my,
Question to yellowstone is, "What chances do you think that this Tax Cut has to stay intact and do you think it was worth it?"
posted on June 10, 2002 08:39:55 PM new"Of course you will probably communicate with others through email to get ideas on what to post, but I guess I can't do anything about that."
I just read that. WOW! That is really being paranoid! I guess I owe ncyc an apology for never giving out my e-mail address to her!
"I don't care what Borillar has to say, nor Helenjw, KRS or anyone else, in fact I will ignore what anyone else besides you has to say in this thread. In otherwords, you started this thread by calling me out and it should be you that finishes it. This is the way it works when you call someone out, your on your own."
I hate to say it, but in part, Yellowstone is right in that if you pick a fight, you need to finish it. Not necessarily by yourself, but your response should reflect your side of things, your interpreation of the reasons why you called him out. Of course, just asking Yellowstone for one or more things that Bush has done that he can be proud of is not really "calling him out", so to speak. Don't feel intimidated by that. Let me give you a few tips:
No matter what, this is a public message forum on the Internet. If it becomes too intense, turn off the computer and go watch your favorite movie on TV or go out for a long walk, visit friends, etc. Perspective is everything when debating.
Use your word processor. Do not write your replies and responses in the AW window, but do them on your word processor. Then cut and paste the finished product into the AW window.
First write out your thoughts with the Spellchecker Off and write out exactly what you think. Then, take a short sandwich break, go back and read what you wrote. Do the arguments check out? Are your facts in order? (a good thing is to get your links or references prepared, but don't use them until asked for. That way, you can intimidate the other person when they keep questioning you as to your facts, you slam them with it, making them look like a fool.) Check your grammar, small words are fine so long as you don't babble (reword all babble or remove it entirely.)
Keep an open mind that you might be wrong. The crime is to be ignorant and refuse to get educated, not to be correct in your ignorance. You are here to LEARN.
Whose position is it anyway? There is a *HUGE* difference between having your own position which you have adopted through experience and education, compared to simply adopting a view supplied to you by others. The first position is rock-solid and the other one makes you target-practice. It is VITAL that you distinguish what you believe to be the truth between these two constructs before you post your thoughts.
Your opponent does not think that he is evil or bad or that his position is wrong, unless he's just pulling your leg.
With these tings in mind, don't be afraid to say what you really think, but be super-polite about it - that makes you the Good Guy, even if you are wrong, as nobody likes a bully.
